There's no way that this is the full context of the text...it might be the full text sent, but what about what came before or after that? What about
his responses and texts back?

Context matters, and we still have none, just a bit more and then someone telling us what things mean.

There may be a lot of context missing. HOWEVER, if the text is a joke and it is about a gag gift of Putin calendars passed out at the FBI...that's
about as bad as it can be for the FBI.

What "reasonable prosecutor" would bring a case based on evidence gathered by investigators who displayed such bias? Investigators who didn't take it
seriously and displayed Putin calendars as a *gag*. Calendars passed out by Trump-haters?

Comey said the test in the Hillary email *matter* was whether a reasonable prosecutor would bring a case.

Ultimately, that same test applies here, and it's looking less and less likely that a reasonable prosecutor would bring a case where all the evidence
could easily be thrown out on a well-supported motion from the Defense.

But, it is CNN reporting on something an unnamed source said that casts Trump in a sympathetic light...so there's that.

That was kind of my point. Their vetting method for stories about Trump is "Would this be bad for Trump? Yes. Print." There's no further standard over
there.

And that was my point..it's not bad for Trump. It's bad for the FBI.

CNN can spin it...but it's still bad for the FBI, and favorable to Trump.

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't part of Trump's angle that there is a partisan witch hunt going on? Wouldn't some texts about a secret society of
anti-Trumpers within the FBI be good for him then, in the public opinion realm at least? And then CNN's assertion that the texts about a secret
society were just a joke would be bad for him, since that would debunk that part of the secret society conspiracy?

I think we're saying the same thing in 2 different ways.

ETA: This is actually answered by your most recent post. I see what you're saying now. We're not saying the same thing, but you do have a point.

How are Putin-calendars worse than a secret society, whether it was a joke or not? I don't know what kind of calendars they had but if it's just
pictures of Putin riding horses and playing with tigers shirtless, then it seems trivial. The things Strzok wrote about Trump are way worse. It's not
like an American court is going to prosecute Putin anyway.

If the calendars where slandering Putin somehow then that's inappropriate I guess, but I still say it's the least of anyone's worries.

I don't see how the FBI handing out Putin calendars is substantively different than the prosecutor's office handing out Hangman t-shirts during the
Kobe Bryant case.

Anyway…I look forward to reading what others have to say...

I will tell you one difference that hinges only on perception: the FBI's job is to impartially provide truth as an investigative agency. The
prosecutors job is to prosecute the crime given to them. I expect them to have far, far less impartiality, as theya re actively accusing the
defendant in front of God and all.

The investigator/LEO, on the other hand, showing a predetermined conclusion to their investigation by making light of the person being investigated
is not only unprofessional, it indicates that truth was not the primary objective. "Pinning the charges" was.

That difference, to me, is pretty stark. That being said, neither is becomming professionals tasked with the grave task of determining who is up to
have their rights suspended.

Is that what is happening here? People are withholding judgment until all the facts are out?

If you Google "Secret Society" you'll see that the LIBERAL MSM and LIBERAL PUNDITS are waaaay over-reacting to something that's relatively minor in
the overall scheme of potential wrongdoings. CNN's Jake Tapper especially so today. It's as if they've been "found out"...or that the bread-crumbs
are leading investigators in their direction. Totally out of proportion reactions today.

I will tell you one difference that hinges only on perception: the FBI's job is to impartially provide truth as an investigative agency. The
prosecutors job is to prosecute the crime given to them. I expect them to have far, far less impartiality, as theya re actively accusing the
defendant in front of God and all.

The investigator/LEO, on the other hand, showing a predetermined conclusion to their investigation by making light of the person being investigated
is not only unprofessional, it indicates that truth was not the primary objective. "Pinning the charges" was.

That difference, to me, is pretty stark. That being said, neither is becomming professionals tasked with the grave task of determining who is up to
have their rights suspended.

I totally agree. I should have said it was not substantively "less egregious." It may, in fact, be more egregious.

It may be that passing out these calendars is worse. Was the culture of bias in the FBI blatant...encouraged? Or was it only a few secret people?

It depends on how many people accepted the calendars and displayed them...and who they were and what their roles were.

'Secret' or 'out in the open and encouraged'...I think out in the open and encouraged is far worse. The bias is important to the quality of evidence
collected by the FBI, and the confidence a jury would have in any case born from it.

ETA: I am using the sh*ttiest laptop we own because my usual laptop is down. Sorry for edits and typos. My cursor is jumping all over the place while
I type.

One text? This whole theory is based on one text?
oh save me please.....

Don't be daft.

If there are Putin calendars that were passed out as a gag gift to people working on the investigation in the FBI...a Defense attorney in any case
stemming from that original investigation will find out who accepted them, did they keep them, display them, what they thought about them...whether
they took the investigation seriously....

Do you think an impartial FBI investigator working on the Russia investigation would accept a Putin calendar from a co-investigator, display it, and
still expect to be taken seriously?

I don't.

If the FBI handed out calendars of Monica Lewinsky....would you feel good about the evidence they collected had they recommended Hillary be
charged?

I don't give two sh!ts about Johnson, his statements, or any backpedaling.

I do care that FBI agents distributed Putin beefcake calendars to investigators working on the Russia investigation. It completely undermines their
investigation, integrity, impartiality, and seriousness.

Everyone should be disgusted with it. What a waste and slap in all of our faces to treat this investigation like a GD joke.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.